the best seat in the house: the court assignment and judicial satisfaction

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 47 No. 2, April 2009 209–238© 2009 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Blackwell Publishing IncMalden, USAFCREFamily Court Review1531-24451744-1617© Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 2009XXX Original Article

Chase and Hora/PROBLEM-SOLVING COURT JUDGES AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

XX

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

Deborah Chase and Hon. Peggy Fulton Hora

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignmentssuch as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, havegenerally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of thethree survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. Thejudges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on allthree scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving courtjudges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoringthe highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with thecriminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to reportbelieving that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them thereand were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe thatlitigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were morelikely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were alsomore likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positiveemotional effect on them.

Keywords:

drug courts

;

family law courts

;

unified family law courts

;

problem-solving courts

;

therapeutic

jurisprudence

;

judges

;

family law judges

;

drug court judges

;

judicial satisfaction

INTRODUCTION

Observations of judges at conferences of the National Association of Drug CourtProfessionals (NADCP) were the genesis of this project. Judges there could not seem tostop talking about “their” drug treatment court participants. These judges were moreanimated and excited about and wedded to their courts than, say, a group of civiljudges discussing summary judgments. We asked, “What is it about drug treatment courtjudges that make them different? Has the assignment changed them? Is there a differencein judicial satisfaction between drug treatment court judges and others even if they, too,work therapeutically?”

THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE

Significant changes in social and economic conditions over the last several decades haveplaced new and challenging demands on courts. Enormous growth in caseload volume, inparticular drug cases, and the stunning increase in the numbers of pro se litigants in familylaw proceedings, as well as the recognition of the complexity and types of problems presented

Correspondences: [email protected]; [email protected]

210 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

to courts, have generated the development of innovative problem-solving approaches tojurisprudence. Over the last twenty years a modern jurisprudential approach to these issueshas emerged called “therapeutic jurisprudence.”

Therapeutic jurisprudence is the study of the extent to which substantive rules, legalprocedures, and the roles of lawyers and judges produce therapeutic or antitherapeuticconsequences for individuals involved in the legal process.

1

The seminal literature ontherapeutic jurisprudence originated from the field of mental health law, thus the term“therapeutic.” The principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, however, have proved applicableto many other areas of both criminal and civil law.

2

As courts have employed these principlesoutside the area of mental health law, the term “problem-solving courts” has come to bewidely used to described the core focus of this justice paradigm. Today there are severalterms commonly used to describe problem-solving courts.

3

Therapeutic jurisprudence as the philosophical basis of problem-solving courts requirescase processing focused on solving the underlying problems that bring litigants, oftenrepeatedly, before the courts. It involves a new kind of partnership between the law and socialscience that recognizes the need for strategic planning based on scientific research, evidence-based practices, advanced information systems, data collection, and quantitative evaluation.

4

Therapeutic jurisprudence calls for the study of the consequences of legal outcomesusing the tools of the social sciences to ascertain the ways in which the law may actuallybe prolonging or intensifying the legal issues it seeks to resolve, then attempts to determinewhether these counterproductive (antitherapeutic) effects can be reduced and positive(therapeutic) effects enhanced without subordinating due process and other justice values.

5

While maintaining paramount constitutional safeguards such as due process

6

and equalprotection, therapeutic jurisprudence recognizes the potential power of problem-solvingcourts to affect positive changes for litigants and to thereby benefit the community as awhole. Although problem-solving courts have been defined in a number of ways, using anamalgam of definitions, they:

• attend to the underlying medical and/or social problems and chronic behaviors ofcourt users who have recurring contacts with the justice system;

• apply promising, evidence-based practices from the behavioral sciences to effec-tuate change; and

• seek innovative solutions to complex social issues.

One of the oldest applications of therapeutic jurisprudence is found in the national drugtreatment court movement beginning with the first court in Miami, Florida in 1989. Therapeuticjurisprudence is the jurisprudential underpinning of the drug treatment court movement anddrug treatment courts are therapeutic jurisprudence in action.

7

Drug treatment court judgessupervise the treatment and recovery of alcohol and other drug users who have beenarrested and charged with offenses fueled by substance abuse. The drug court model nowincludes a variety of courts that supervise treatment or other court-ordered interventions.

8

There are about 3200 such problem-solving courts in the United States and in twenty foreigncountries.

9

For example, in a drug treatment court, the focus is shifted from exclusivelyadjudicating the issue of guilt to promoting the recovery of the participant. Drug treatmentcourt judges no longer serve simply as detached arbiters but employ engaged neutrality

10

to work intensely with the cases and litigants as critical figures in a system directed towardthe participants’ sobriety and accountability. The judge’s personal knowledge of a participant’sbackground, reasons for drug use, living situation, physical and mental health, family,employment, parenting skills, and other matters is central to the process. The judge watches

Chase and Hora/PROBLEM-SOLVING COURT JUDGES AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION 211

recovery, praises successes, supports ongoing efforts, and attends to lapses. In so doing,drug treatment court judges are significantly affected by this process.

11

Problem-solving courts that apply the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence are setapart from traditional courts by their case specificity and attention to individual litigantimprovement, their concern with outcomes, and the relationships between the litigants andthe judges. This study uses data collected from three surveys comparing four groups ofjudges. Two groups of judges (drug treatment court and unified family court) are similar inorientation by taking a problem-solving approach. Although the drug treatment courts havea more well-established record of success than the newer unified family courts, both adoptthe principles of therapeutic jurisprudence and employ problem-solving court strategies.The other two groups of judges (traditional criminal court and traditional family court) areworking in settings that have not systematically developed problem-solving court strategies.

THE SURVEY

This study examines whether judicial assignments that employ the principles oftherapeutic jurisprudence in problem-solving courts (drug treatment courts and unifiedfamily courts) create a more positive experience and result in greater job satisfaction forjudges than those working in the other assignments. Data were taken from three surveys. Thefirst survey compared drug treatment judges with traditional family law court judges. Thesecond survey added a group of unified family court judges that worked in assignmentsmore expressly designed on the problem-solving model than the traditional family lawcourt judges. This was followed by a third survey that added a group of traditional criminalcourt judges. It was expected that there would be significant differences between thegroup of problem-solving court judges (the drug treatment court and unified family courtjudges) and the group of traditional court judges (family and criminal court judges), withthe problem-solving court group experiencing higher levels of judicial satisfaction. Differenceswere expected to be expressed by beliefs and attitudes in the following areas:

(a) Problem-solving court judges were expected to feel more strongly that the role ofthe court includes providing help to the litigants in solving the problems thatbrought them there and that the courts are actually helpful to litigants.

(b) Problem-solving court judges were expected to hold more positive attitudes towardthe individuals who appear before them.

(c) Problem-solving court judges were expected to feel more strongly that their assign-ments have had a positive emotional effect on them personally.

DRUG TREATMENT COURT JUDGES

The emergence of the drug treatment courts grew from recognition on the part of judges,prosecutors, and defense counsel that the traditional criminal justice methods of incarceration,probation, or supervised parole were not adequately addressing alcohol and other drug useamong persons in contact with the criminal justice system who commit drug-related crimesin America.

12

Drug treatment courts across the country operate with many different styles,but there are several essential elements that all appear to have in common, as reflected inthe NADCP’s ten Key Components.

13


Reviews of evaluations of drug treatment courts indicate high levels of success for mostparticipants.

14

This seems to be an international phenomenon.

15

The judge’s role in the drugtreatment court is considered to be crucial to the successful outcome of the court.

16

In his 2001research update, Belenko

17

reported that all the clients in the Erie County (Ohio) evaluationagreed that the judge treated them with respect (96%), was fair (93%), and was concernedabout them (86%).

18

Three-quarters said that the court interactions with the judge helpedthem to stay off drugs.

19

In a 1996 evaluation of the Oakland (California) drug treatment courtconducted by the National Center for State Courts, it was found that changes in convictionrates varied with the changes in judicial personnel in the drug treatment court.

20

An evaluation of the Denver (Colorado) Drug Court showed that, during a period whenthe judge received 60% “good and passable reviews” from the defendants, only 14% wentto jail within a one-year period. In contrast, when the next judge received only 40% “goodand passable reviews” from the defendants, the number who went to jail rose to 40%.

21

An evaluation of the Monterey County (California) drug court reported that the largestnumber of participants who were asked to rate aspects of the drug court program from “noteffective” to “very effective” reported that their interaction with the judge was effective.

22

In an evaluation of the Jacksonville (Florida) drug court, defendants rated the judge as moresupportive of their recovery than the treatment program staff.

23

In February 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published an extensive reviewof drug court research, which concluded that most adult drug court programs evidencedlower rearrest and conviction rates for drug court participants than comparison groupmembers.

24

The drug court group also demonstrated fewer recidivism events than comparisongroup members in a variety of types of offenses, and those reductions were maintained.

25

In addition to rearrest, drug courts can have other important outcomes as was seen forCalifornia drug courts graduates who were more likely to be self-supporting.

26

It is mostimportant to note that these positive evaluation effects have been sustained under stringentexperimental research conditions.

27

The director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, John Walters,in a speech to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, called drug courts “theplace where miracles happen.”

28

Drug treatment courts have tremendous support from thepublic as well. As a commentator at the 1999 National Center for State Courts’ NationalConference on Public Trust and Confidence in the Judicial System said, “. . . it is onlythrough judges and the sanctions that you all have done that we have ever been able tochange behavior of people who have been in the criminal justice system.”

29

Between 1997and 1999, the Crime and Justice Research Institute conducted focus groups of drug courtparticipants in six American drug courts. When asked about the importance of the drugtreatment court judge to their ability to succeed in the program, participants across focusgroups and locations agreed generally that the judges’ hands-on role formed one of themost important aspects of their drug court experiences. They did not believe a lesser official,such as a probation officer, could play the same role or have the same effect on theirbehavior. They also discussed the problems posed by frequent substitution of judges in drugcourt, comparing the substitute judge to a “substitute teacher” who was “easy to get over on.”

30

TRADITIONAL FAMILY COURT JUDGES

Family law court judges work in a courtroom process that is quite different from that ofthe drug treatment court. Although originally conceptualized to be therapeutic in orientation,

31


the majority of family law courts have not broadly employed a systemic problem-solvingstrategy or the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence.

32

The National Center for StateCourts has determined that family law is the largest and fastest growing segment of statecourts’ civil caseloads,

33

yet family courts are notoriously underresourced, suffering underthe weight of large dockets, complex issues, and few support services for judges. Managementof cases involving families is often fragmented. Frequently, the legal issues related to afamily enter the court system in many different ways. Cases of child abuse and/or neglectare heard in adult criminal court or juvenile dependency court as are juvenile delinquencymatters. Guardianship of children who might need assistance due to parental alcohol orother drug abuse are heard in probate courts. Divorce, legal separation, nullity, andestablishment of parentage cases are heard in family courts. Cases for the enforcement ofchild support heard pursuant to the Federal Social Security Act, Title IV-D are also frequentlyheld locally in family courts. Requests for domestic violence restraining orders may be heardin civil domestic violence courts. If criminal charges have been filed, the parties ina family case may find themselves in criminal court as well, all too often with conflictingcourt orders. A systemic characteristic of the majority of family law courts is their disarray.

Because of the wide array of potential underlying issues, family and children’s cases canbe quite complex

34

and can require protracted planning involving social services.

35

Familiesneeding the most thoughtful and well designed interventions often find that they are beingshuffled among different courts and different judges with no communication among them.

36

Lack of court coordination and information sharing, plus an overall inadequate allocationof resources to children and family cases, can lead to a variety of problems for both thecourt and the litigants:

37

• Conflicting or unnecessary court appearances;• Conflicting orders or duplicative orders of referrals for a variety of social services;• Some aspects of a dispute being adjudicated more than once;• Critical information unavailable to judicial officers;• Inability of the court to track compliance with its orders; and• Inability to provide timely hearings or trials.

And in many jurisdictions, the great majority of family law litigants are pro se and leftwithout assistance to help them deal with a variety of confusing and apparently contradictoryprocedures.

38

The lack of a holistic, well-managed approach by the traditional court to cases involvingfamilies and children sets it in stark contrast to the approach taken by the drug treatmentcourts.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT JUDGES

Most family law scholars agree that the fragmented family law system needs reform

39

and are calling for systemic implementation of unified family court systems.

40

A unifiedfamily court system is frequently organized with a single court having comprehensivejurisdiction over all cases involving children and relating to the same family, with onespecially trained judge assigned to each family and with coordinated social servicescrafted to meet the family’s individual needs.

41

This model has come to be known as “onejudge, one family” courts. As courts have struggled to address the issues facing family


justice, other models of organizing and unifying cases involving families and children havealso been effectively implemented. Examples include systems organized around one teamof service coordinators or information-sharing systems among judges with more limitedcomprehensive jurisdiction. Regardless of the specific model, however, judges working in theunified family courts are particularly concerned with solving the legal, emotional, andsocial problems the families are presenting to the court, including substance abuse anddomestic violence. A unified family court is also part of a broader community justiceparadigm that focuses on problem solving and coordinates with community services.In a “Blueprint to Establish a Unified Family Court,” the Center for Children, Familiesand the Courts at the University of Baltimore School of Law sets forth the key elementsof a unified family court. They include attention to the court structure (specifically aseparate court or specialized docket presided over by knowledgeable judges makingevidence-based orders), comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction, specialized casemanagement and case-processing systems, social services either supplied by or referred toby the court with the earliest possible interventions, and a “user friendly court” accessibleto all litigants and “accommodating litigants in the most therapeutic manner possible.”

42

Although fewer evaluations are available for unified family courts than for the drugtreatment courts, results are encouraging with respect to outcomes for families. For example,in one study, the simultaneous scheduling of multiple case matters before the same judgeappeared to reduce the number of court appearances.

43

Existing evaluation data also suggestthat unified family courts result in a more informed bench, offer a better opportunity torespond to the needs of the families, and can have great benefits when the family’s problemsare severe or when issues of compliance arise.

44

TRADITIONAL CRIMINAL COURT JUDGES

Judges in traditional criminal courts experience a variety of tasks: arraignment, ownrecognizance release decisions, and bail hearings; pretrial hearings; felony preliminaryhearings; misdemeanor and felony court or jury trials; sentencing and probation violationhearings; and miscellaneous other tasks such as motions to seal criminal records, motionsto suppress evidence, and discovery matters, among many others.

Arraignment and pretrial hearing calendars are often overloaded and overwhelming. Inorder to get through the calendar, the judge must operate at breakneck speed with barelytime to look up from the docket. It is not uncommon for judges in urban arraignment courtsto lose their voices from the strain. The perceptions of the judge and the criminal defendantare in staggering disassociation. There is barely time for the judge to think, let alone interactwith the parties or their attorneys.

Criminal jury trials in a large urban court become routine after a time on the bench andcan become just another thing to get through. Managing the trial, barking at the partiesto be on time, instructing the jury, and listening to mind-numbing testimony wears on thejudge. To top it off, the reward for finishing one jury trial is to be sent another. Judges oftenfeel like Lucy Ricardo in an episode of

I Love Lucy

in which Lucy was forced to eat thecandy rolling down the assembly line at Kramer’s Kandy Kitchen because she couldn’t keepup the pace.

Posttrial, the judge must sentence those found guilty, and mandatory sentencing lawsin some jurisdictions have taken away much of judges’ discretion.

45

One judge describedhis felony sentencing calendar as “adding up the years in state prison for poor, young black


men to serve.”

46

Sentencing laws have become so complex that there are computer pro-grams to assist the judge in “adding up the years.”

47

Thankfully, this trend may bereversing itself with New York’s recent reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws that heldthat the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that are notoriously harsh on drug offenders areeffectively advisory rather than mandatory (

U.S. v. Booker

, 2005543 U.S. 220).

48

Arecent report also states that the U.S. Sentencing Commission is going to recommendalternative sentencing such as drug treatment courts, a reform that has been a long timecoming.

49

The number of persons incarcerated in federal, state, and local correctional facilitiesacross the nation has risen dramatically in the last decade.

50

As of 2005, more than 2.1million Americans were incarcerated, 4.1 million Americans were on probation, and over700,000 were on parole.

51

In all, nearly seven million people are under the control of thecriminal justice system.

52

Trial Court Performance Standard 3.5 states, “The Trial Court takes appropriateresponsibility for the enforcement of its orders.”

53

Yet in traditional criminal courts this isseldom the rule. Perhaps the most frustrating event for a judge after carefully craftingprobation conditions is seeing the defendant come back on violations within a very shorttime. Forty percent of probationers do not successfully complete the conditions of theirprobation.

54

Almost 70% of prisoners serving time for drug offenses are rearrested withinthree years of release.

55

The California parole system was recently called a “$1 BillionFailure.”

56

California’s Little Hoover Commission, a nonpartisan watchdog agency, foundthat 67% of those sent to prison were parolees being returned for “technical violations”such as missing a meeting with their parole officer or failing a drug test.

57

It was statisticslike these that led judges to look for the alternatives that became drug treatment courts.

JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

Given the generally positive outcomes reflected in the evaluations of the drug treatmentcourts and in early reports on unified family courts, it might be expected that beneficialeffects on the litigants would predict fairly high levels of judicial satisfaction among thejudges. Studies in other professional settings such as family planning clinics,

58

hospital emergency rooms,

59

behavioral health clinics,

60

and services for the elderly

61

havereported significant relationships between job satisfaction and client satisfaction. Forjudges, the positive effect of a particular judicial assignment is not, until fairly recently, atopic that has received much research attention. In a 1980 study of American trialjudges, their perception of their work environment was not found to be typically related towhether they were sitting on specialized calendars or master calendars that incorporateall types of cases.

62

In a 1981 survey, however, judges complained of job stress arisingfrom lack of control over what type of cases they were given.

63

In a study from 1982, 422juvenile court judges in West Germany were surveyed to assess their attitudes toward socialscience assistance and the administration of justice. Highest job satisfaction was found inthe judges who endorsed and practiced with social science and educational orientation intheir work, interacted well with service providers, approved of specialized judicialtraining, and were involved in community work outside the court.

64

In the 1980 study ofAmerican judges, it was found that judges who work long hours, are involved in communityrelations, and are involved in bar activities are more likely to be satisfied with theirenvironment.

65


Job stress is the more common topic of research on judicial satisfaction.

66

Job stress injudges is commonly associated with social isolation;

67

feeling disliked by others, lack ofinterest and understanding, and not feeling appreciated.

68

Judges also suffer from lack offeedback and caseload volume, as well as lack of control over what cases they get.

69

Additionally, frustration at their lack of ability to be helpful to litigants seems tocontribute to judicial stress. Judges express dismay at finding that, due to large caseloads,they have to process people because they have so little time to listen. In traditionalcriminal courts, this is sometimes referred to as “McJustice: One Million Served.”

70

In suchcircumstances, there can be a tendency for judges to withdraw empathy and respect for thelitigants.

71

The phenomenon described as “compassion fatigue” is being studied in judgeswhose caseloads emphasize domestic violence.

72

The presence of judicial stress is frequently observed in traditional family law courtjudges. Judges in family law seem to experience high stress, frustration, and feelings ofhelplessness and burnout.

73

Interestingly, many of the factors related to job stress are notas commonly observed in drug treatment court judges despite heavy caseloads.

74

Manyhave expressed a sense of pride in a job well done and a brighter outlook since taking thedrug treatment court assignment. These feelings had not heretofore been experienced intheir professional careers.

75

SURVEY RESULTS

Responses to the items on the survey questionnaire are grouped into three subscales:(1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment.

In orderto analyze the subscale responses, only those surveys that were completely filled out wereincluded. There were a total of 355 fully completed surveys from the four groups of judges.There were 69 drug court judges, 44 unified family court judges, 85 traditional family courtjudges, and 157 traditional criminal court judges.

SUBSCALE AND ITEM SCORES

The first subscale in the survey asked the judges three questions: (1) did they think thatpart of the role of the court was to help the litigants solve the problems that bought themthere? (2) did they think that the court was actually helpful to the litigants? (3) had theyseen the litigants make improvements with their problems?

Judges Problem-Solving (

n

= 113) Traditional (

n

= 242)

Drug Court Judges (

n

= 69)

Unified FamilyCourt (

n

= 44)

Criminal Court (

n

= 157)

Family Court (

n

= 85)

Male 74% 71% 73% 66%Female 26% 29% 28% 34%Age 53 52 51 52Years in Profession 16 16 9 15Time in Current Assignment 4 7 7 3


HELPFULNESS SUBSCALE SCORES

The scores of problem-solving court judges were significantly higher on this subscalethan the scores of the traditional group of judges.

76

Eighty-two percent of the problem-solving court judges had clearly positive ratings on the Helpfulness subscale as opposed toonly 50% of the other judges. Another 17% were in the midrange and only 1% fell ontothe negative side. Forty-five percent of the traditional judges fell into the midrange while5% ranked scored negatively.

HELPFULNESS ITEM SCORES

Is It Part of the Role of the Court to Help Litigants Solve Their Presenting Problems


The problem-solving court group of judges (91%) felt significantly more strongly thanthe other group of judges (72%)

77

that part of the role of the court is to help the litigantssolve the problems that brought them there. Ninety-one percent of both drug treatmentcourt and unified family court judges responded positively to this question and none gavea negative response. The remaining 9% of the problem-solving court judges felt that thecourt should sometimes try to help the litigants. While responses from the traditional familycourt judges were only slightly lower, only 64% of the criminal judges responded positivelyto this question. These judges were much more ambivalent about the role the court shouldplay with another 29% responding that the court should sometimes play a helpful role and7% that the court should never serve a helpful function for litigants.

Is the Court Helpful to the Litigants?


The problem-solving court judges were significantly more likely (83%) than the otherjudges (68%)

78

to believe that their courts are actually helpful to the litigants. Eighty-five percent of the drug treatment court judges were sure that their courts are helpful to thelitigants and 15% felt they are helpful some of the time. None of the drug treatment courtjudges believed that their courts are totally lacking in helpfulness to litigants. Theunified family court judges reported that their courts are helpful to litigants 80% of the timeand sometimes are helpful 18% of the time. Two percent felt that they are not helpful tolitigants. Responses from the traditional family court judges were again slightly lower.Seventy-seven percent reported that their courts are helpful to litigants, 21% felt they aresometimes helpful, and 2% reported that their courts are not helpful to litigants. In thegroup of criminal court judges, 64% reported that their courts are helpful to the litigants.Another 30% felt their courts are sometimes helpful, and 7% reported that their courts arenot helpful to litigants.

Have You Seen the Litigants Make Improvements with Their Problems?


The problem-solving court judges (81%) were significantly more likely than the otherjudges (54%) to report seeing the litigants in their courts make improvements with theirproblems.79 The drug treatment court judges reported seeing improvements in theirlitigants 93% of the time. Another 7% reported seeing improvements in some cases.All of the drug treatment court judges reported seeing improvements in the litigantsat least some of the time and not one reported seeing no improvement. The unifiedfamily court judges reported seeing litigants improve in 64% of the cases, and in anadditional 34% they reported improvements in some cases. Two percent reportedseeing no improvements in the litigants. Interestingly, the traditional family courtjudges reported the lowest scores. Only 50% of these judges reported seeing the litigantsin their court make improvements with their problems; another 46% reported seeingimprovements in some cases. Two percent of traditional family court judges did notfeel they saw any improvements in the litigants appearing before them. Fifty-fivepercent of the criminal judges believe they see improvements on the part of thelitigants, 39% reported seeing improvement in some cases, and 6% reported no pro-gress at all.

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE LITIGANTS SUBSCALE SCORES

The second subscale asked the judges five questions: (1) do they have hope that the lit-igants can solve their problems? (2) do they think that the litigants are motivated to try andsolve their problems? (3) do they feel respected by the litigants? (4) do they think that thelitigants are grateful for the help they received from the court? and (5) do they admire thelitigants for their efforts to solve their problems?


The problem-solving court judges (51%) were significantly more positive in theirattitudes toward the litigants than the other judges (15%).80 Fifty-one percent of theproblem-solving court judges expressed clearly positive attitudes toward the litigants intheir courts. Forty-seven percent scored in the middle range and only 2% reported basicallynegative attitudes toward the litigants they see. The traditional judges were more ambivalentabout the litigants appearing before them. Only 15% expressed clearly positive attitudestoward the litigants while the majority (75%) scored in the middle range. Ten percentexpressed negative views of their litigants.

ATTITUDE TOWARD LITIGANTS ITEM SCORES

I am Hopeful that the Litigants Can Solve Their Problems

The problem-solving court judges (81%) expressed more hope than the other judges(46%) that the litigants appearing before them can solve the problems that brought them tocourt.81 The drug treatment court judges were the most hopeful for the litigants with 86%responding positively to this question. The other 14% reported that they felt somewhat


hopeful for the litigants. None of the drug treatment court judges expressed a complete lackof hope for improvement in the litigants. The unified family court judges were also mostlyhopeful for the litigants’ improvement. They responded positively 73% of the time. Another27% were somewhat hopeful for the litigants, and none expressed hopelessness for litigant-improvement. Only 55% of the traditional family court judges responded positively to thisquestion. Another 27% were hopeful for litigant improvement sometimes, and 3% felt therewas no hope at all for the litigants to improve. The criminal judges were least hopeful for litigantimprovement. Nonetheless, 41% reported that they were hopeful for the litigants. Another 50%reported being hopeful sometimes, and 9% expressed no hope at all for the litigants to improve.

I Believe that the Litigants are Motivated to Try and Solve Their Problems

Judges in all groups expressed less certainty about the motivation of the litigants. Theproblem-solving court judges, however, was more positive in their responses (47%) thanthe other judges (13%).82 Sixty-one percent of the drug treatment court judges wereoptimistic about the litigants’ motivation to solve their problems. Another 39% agreed


that the litigants were sometimes productively motivated, and none reported the belief thatlitigants were completely without motivation for change. The unified family court groupwas less certain than the drug treatment court group in this area, with 25% responding thatthe litigants were motivated to try and solve their problems. Seventy-one percent agreedthat the litigants were sometimes motivated to make changes, and 4% did not believe thelitigants were motivated at all. The traditional family court judges were slightly lessoptimistic than the unified family court judges about the litigants’ motivation, with 19%responding positively and 10% reporting no confidence at all in the litigants’ motives. Aswith the unified court judges, 71% thought that the litigants were motivated to solve theirproblems some of the time. The criminal court judges were the least optimistic about themotivation of the litigants. Only 9% of the criminal court judges reported that the litigantsappeared to be motivated to solve the problems that brought them before the court. Another75%, however, agreed that the litigants were sometimes motivated, and 17% reported see-ing litigants as completely unmotivated to improve.

I Feel I am Respected by the Litigants


While all groups of judges tended to report feeling respected by the litigants, theproblem-solving court judges (85%) responded more positively to this question than theother judges (68%).83 The drug treatment court judges felt respected by the litigants 90%of the time with another 10% feeling that they were respected some of the time. None ofthe drug treatment court judges felt disrespect from the litigants. The unified family courtjudges reported being respected by the litigants 77% of the time with another 23% feelingthey were respected some of the time. None of the unified family court judges feltdisrespect from the litigants. The traditional family court judges reported feeling the leastrespected by the litigants. These judges responded positively only 67% of the time withanother 32% feeling respected some of the time. Only 1% felt disrespected by the litig-ants, however. The criminal court judges felt respected 70% of the time with another 29%feeling respected some of the time. Only 1% of the criminal court judges felt disrespected bylitigants.

I Feel that the Litigants are Grateful for the Help They Receive from the Court


The problem-solving court judges (62%) were significantly more likely than the otherjudges (27%) to report experiencing gratitude from the litigants for help they had receivedfrom the court.84 Seventy-eight percent of the drug treatment court judges reportedgratitude from the litigants. Another 22% responded that they sometimes felt gratitudefrom litigants, and none reported litigants as ungrateful. The unified family court judgeswere less certain about gratitude from litigants. Thirty-nine percent reported that the litigantswere grateful for the help they had received from the court and another 55% reported litigantswere sometimes grateful. There were 6% that reported that the litigants were not gratefulfor the help they received from the court. The traditional family court judges demon-strated a slightly less positive experience with 32% reporting that the litigants weregrateful for the help they received from the court. Another 62% reported that litigants weresometimes grateful, and 6% reported that litigants were not grateful. Twenty-six percentof the criminal court judges reported gratitude from litigants. Another 58% reported thatlitigants were sometimes grateful and 16% reported that litigants were not grateful.

I Admire the Litigants for Their Efforts to Solve their Problems

The problem-solving judges (74%) were more likely than the other judges (49%) torespond that they admired the efforts of the litigants to solve the problems that hadbrought them to court.85 Eighty-four percent of the drug treatment court judges reportedthat they admired the efforts of the litigants with another 16% reporting admiration of thelitigants some of the time. There were no drug treatment court judges that reported a lackof regard for the efforts of the litigants to solve their problems. In the unified family courtgroup, 60% of the judges reported admiration for the litigants and another 40% felt


admiration for the litigants some of the time. None of the unified family court judgesreported a lack of regard for the efforts of the litigants to solve their problems. Fifty-threepercent of the traditional family court judges reported having admiration for the efforts ofthe litigants to solve their problems, but another 9% responded having no such regard forthe efforts of the litigants. Another 38% reported admiring the litigants. Forty-seven percentof the traditional criminal court judges reported having admiration for the efforts of thelitigants to solve their problems. Another 46% reported having admiration for the litigantssome of the time, and 6% reported having no regard for the efforts of the litigants toimprove their situations.


POSITIVE EFFECTS SUBSCALE SCORES

The third subscale asked the judges three questions: (1) did they feel that their currentassignment had a positive emotional effect on them? (2) did they enjoy talking about theirwork with family and friends? and (3) did they feel happier in their current assignment thanin other assignments? The problem-solving court judges ranked higher on this subscalethan the other judges.86 Seventy percent rated positively on this subscale compared to 41%of the traditional group of judges. Another 26% of the problem-solving court judges reportthat the assignment affects them positively some of the time, and only 4% reported thatthe assignment had negative effects. While 40% of the traditional judges reported that theirassignment sometimes had a positive effect on them, 19% reported negative effects fromtheir assignment.

This Assignment Has Had a Positive Emotional Effect on Me


The problem-solving court judges (85%) were more likely than the other judges(58%) to report that their current judicial assignment had a positive emotional effect onthem.87 Ninety-one percent of the drug treatment court judges reported positive effectsfrom their assignments. The other 9% reported having somewhat positive effects. Allthe drug treatment court judges reported the belief that their assignment had at leastsome positive effects on them. Seventy-five percent of the unified family court judgesreported positive effects on them from their assignments. Another 16% reported havingsomewhat positive effects, and 9% reported no positive effects at all. Only 63% of thetraditional family court judges reported having positive effects from their assignments.Another 25% acknowledged somewhat positive effects, and 11% reported no positiveeffects at all.

The lowest scores came from the criminal court judges. Fifty-five percent of the criminalcourt judges reported positive effects from their current assignments. Another 26% felt thatthey had experienced somewhat positive effects, but 19% reported that their current assign-ment had no positive effects on them at all.

I Enjoy Discussing My Job with Family and Friends

The problem-solving court judges (69%) were more likely than the other judges (45%)to report that they enjoyed discussing their work with family and friends.88 Eighty percentof the drug court judges responded that they enjoyed discussing their work with familyand friends. Another 20% sometimes enjoyed discussing their work. All of the drugtreatment court judges reported that they enjoyed discussing their work at least some of


the time. In the unified family court group, 53% reported enjoying discussing their work,and another 32% reported liking to talk about their jobs some of the time. Fifteen percentreported that they did not enjoy discussing their work at all. Of the traditional family courtjudges, 47% reported liking to discuss their work. Another 28% reported that they some-times enjoy talking about their work, and 25% reported that they do not like to discusstheir jobs with family and friends. Forty-four percent of the criminal judges responded thatthey enjoyed discussing their work with family and friends. Another 33% reported likingto talk about their jobs some of the time and 23% said they never enjoyed discussingtheir work.


I am Happier in This Assignment than I Have Been in Others

The problem-solving court judges (75%) were more likely than the other judges (65%)to report being happier in their current assignments,89 although the variance in responses to thisquestion was smaller than in the other two questions in this subscale. Eighty percent of thedrug treatment court judges reported being happier in this assignment than in others they havehad. Another 17% responded that they are somewhat happier and 3% reported that they arenot happier in their drug treatment court assignment. In the unified family court group, 66%reported being happier in this assignment. Another 30% reported being somewhat happierand 4% reported not being happier in their unified family court assignment. The traditionalfamily court group scored slightly less positively with 64% of the judges reporting that theyare happier in their current assignments. Another 29% reported being somewhat happierand 7% reported not being happier in their family court assignment. Sixty-four percentof the traditional criminal court judges also reported that they are happier in their current


assignments than in others they have had. Another 23% reported being somewhat hap-pier; however, 13% reported that they are not happier in their criminal court assignments.

DISCUSSION

There were no significant90 differences in any of the subscales among the judges withrespect to their gender or age. The amount of time spent in their assignment did not appearto predict high or low scores on any of these measures, although judges who reported thelongest times spent in their professions generally tended to have higher scores.

As predicted, significant differences were found between the group of problem-solvingjudges (drug treatment court and unified family court) and the group of traditional courtjudges (traditional family court and criminal court) with the problem-solving court judgesresponding more strongly that the role of the court includes providing help to the litigantsin solving the problems that brought them there and that the courts are actually helpful tolitigants. They reported more positive attitudes toward the individuals who appear beforethem and felt more strongly that their assignments have had a positive emotional effect onthe litigants personally. The problem-solving court judges responded significantly higher onall subscales and all individual items in the survey than the traditional court judges.

The drug treatment court judges responded the most positively of all the groups ofjudges. Their answers were significantly higher than the other groups of judges on all itemsin the survey. This was not surprising given the fact that the drug treatment courts employthe most clearly established problem-solving model of the four groups surveyed. Therewere no significant differences, however, between the drug treatment court and unifiedfamily court judges on the helpfulness subscale. Both groups of judges felt similarly thatthe role of the court should be to help litigants solve the problems that brought them tocourt, and that their courts were actually helpful to the litigants.

The unified family court judges scored higher on all subscales and all individual itemsthan either the traditional family court or criminal court judges. The most significantdifferences were with the criminal court judges. The unified family court judges’ scoreswere significantly higher than the criminal judges on two of the subscales (attitude towardlitigants and positive effects) and most of the individual items. The unified court judgeswere significantly more likely than the criminal court judges to report that the litigants weremotivated to try and solve their problems, to express optimism that they could actuallysolve these problems, to report feeling that the litigants were grateful for the help theyreceived from the court, and that they admired the efforts of the litigants to improve theirsituations. The unified family court judges responded significantly more often that theirassignment was having a positive effect on them personally.

The differences between the unified family court judges and the traditional family courtjudges were less remarkable, although the unified family court judges scored higher onevery subscale and every individual item than the traditional family court judges. Thesedifferences, however, did not reach statistical significance in most cases. Where significantdifferences did appear, they were in the judges’ attitudes toward the litigants. The unifiedfamily court judges were significantly more positive about the litigants’ motivation to tryand solve their problems and more optimistic about their chances of actually being able tomake improvements. The pattern of responses in this survey demonstrates that there aredifferences in attitude between these two groups of family court judges about the court, thelitigants, and their own experiences and suggests that these differences could increase as the


unified family court models becomes more well developed. It also must be noted thatunified family courts have not, for the most part, been spared the ongoing issues of scarceresource allocation within the larger court systems and suffer from the same ongoingoverburdening of family courts of all types. The issue of adequate judicial and otherresources devoted to family and children’s cases must be part of any ongoing analysisregarding judicial satisfaction.

Although the traditional family court judges scored higher on most individual itemsthan the traditional criminal court judges, there was no significant difference between themon either the attitude toward litigants or positive effects subscales. The traditional familycourt judges were generally significantly more positive in their attitude about the litigants,but were similar to the criminal court judges in their lack of admiration for the effortsof the litigants to try and solve their problems. In general, the responses of the traditionalfamily court judges were more similar, albeit it less positive, to those of the unified familycourt judges.

Of interest was the fact that no significant differences on any subscale or any individualitem was found by combining the family court judges (traditional and unified) and compar-ing them to the criminal court judges (drug treatment and traditional criminal court). Thefact that the subject matter of the court did not itself result in significant differences wassomewhat surprising. While the drug treatment court implements the principles oftherapeutic jurisprudence and the traditional criminal court does not, these two criminalcourts might seem to have more features in common with each other than with either ofthe two family law courts. Similarly, both unified family courts and traditional family courtsshare common features that clearly differentiate them from either of the two criminalcourts in the survey. For example, both the unified family court and the traditional familycourt are civil courts in which two private individuals are involved in an inability toresolve their differences. The emotional dynamics of the criminal courtroom are differentthan in any family law court setting. In the criminal court, one of the parties is thestate. Although victims may have some voice, they are not litigants. Criminal defendantsare entitled to attorneys, even when they cannot afford private counsel. In family law courtthe litigants frequently appear pro se. It has been suggested that family law litigantsappear less sympathetic than drug court litigants because their actions are often harmfulto others, such as in domestic violence or contested custody cases. (Of course, drug treat-ment court defendants, while being basically harmful to them selves, do inflict injury onother individuals and the community as well.)

An important factor among these groups of judges may be the method of judicialassignment. The original drug treatment court judges tended to have chosen their assignmentsor even founded the courts while the traditional criminal court and traditional family courtjudges may not have personally selected their assignments. In some cases, it may be truethat many unified family court assignments are also self-selected. In drug treatment courts,the current judges may not be the original innovator and may very well have been assignedto the task. The fact that the drug treatment court and unified family court judges in thissurvey had been in their professions longer than the judges in the traditional family courtand criminal court groups may suggest higher levels of choice in assignments based onseniority within a given court. This is particularly true for drug treatment court judges whoreported an average of seven years longer in their professions that the traditional criminalcourt judges. Another important factor among these groups of judges is difference in litigant-characteristics. While no differences would be expected in the distribution of characteristicsamong the family law litigants between traditional or unified family courts, drug treatment


court judges may deal with only nonviolent defendants who meet the criteria for inclusionin the drug treatment court program.

The more positive judges were about the litigants, the more likely it was they would alsoreport that their assignment had a positive emotional effect of them. This was true for allgroups of judges. These findings tend to support the drug treatment court literature thatemphasizes the importance of the relationship between the judge and the litigant. Most ofthat literature, however, focuses on the importance of this relationship to the litigants andtheir efforts to recover. This survey suggests that this relationship is also important to thejudges with regard to their own satisfaction with their work. The responses of these judgessuggest that express recognition by the litigants of the help they have received is animportant part of the process and that the effect of that process on both judge and litigantis dependent on the relationship between them.

The differences between the problem-solving court judges and traditional court judgeswere less pronounced on the helpfulness subscale. The majority of judges in all fourgroups reported that part of the role of the court was to help the litigants solve the problemsthat brought them there. Even 64% the traditional criminal court judges agreed that thecourt’s role should include helping litigants. Although most of the judges overall felt thatthe court should be helpful, there was less certainty about whether or not it actually washelpful to litigants. The greatest difference was reflected in the question about whether thejudges had actually seen litigants make improvements with their problems. The problem-solving judges, particularly the drug treatment court judges, were more certain that theyhad witnessed progress in the litigants. This difference seems clearly related to the problem-solving model employed by the court. These courts are more likely to use a pattern ofreviews that allow the judges to see the litigants on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, thedrug treatment courts in particular are more likely to organize their calendars in athoughtful manner whereby the court and the litigants follow a program of predictableinteractions. Calendars organized in an orderly manner that provide for routine contactbetween judge and litigant creates the opportunity for judges to get positive feedbackabout their work and may serve to relieve job stress. The degree of predictability incalendaring may also serve to reduce stress.91 This method of well-planned calendaringand reviews promotes the opportunity for a positive relationship to develop between thejudge and the litigant.

The organization of the other courts is in contrast, particularly the traditional familylaw and criminal courts. For example, in most traditional family law courts, the only timethe judges have contact with their litigants is when something has gone wrong. This is alsotrue for the traditional criminal court judges. For the most part, cases are set for hearing ona first-come-first-served basis rather than a planned pattern of hearings. There is verylittle predictability for either judge or litigant of what their contact during any given hearingmay be like. It is impossible to predict what other matters may also be set for hearingthat day, how many other people will be scheduled, what the issues will be in the cases,whether sufficient time can be allotted, or what the emotional environment of thecourtroom may be. When reviews are set, they are usually to motivate hesitantagreements or to make temporary arrangements for litigants whose disputes remainbasically unresolved. The hope seems to be that the passage of time may help solve theproblem. Regrettably, unlike fine artisanal Roquefort, cases rarely get better with age.Additionally, the frequent turnover in judicial personnel in the traditional family lawcourts92 weakens the development of any sort of productive relationship between litigantsand judges.


CONCLUSION

Issues of potential self-selection of assignments, characteristics of litigants, and resourceallocation are factors deserving further research. This survey of judges clearly suggests,however, that working in a problem-solving court model is beneficial for the litigants andthe judicial officers and enhances the quality of justice as a whole. Data also suggest thatthe problem-solving model that is developing in the movement toward family court reformhas potential to increase judicial satisfaction for family court judges. Not all commentatorsthink judicial satisfaction is an appropriate field of inquiry, however. One British authornoted, “Ought we to be thinking more about the impact of the team approach [in drugtreatment courts] on notions of justice, rather than concern ourselves with the well-beingof judges, an occupational group quite capable of protecting its own interests?”93 So why,then, does it matter if judges are satisfied in their work?

First, the relationship between job satisfaction and efficacy makes such investigationrelevant to program evaluation. Data from drug treatment court evaluations document thevalue of these courts in accomplishing their goals. The goals of these courts includeproviding help to the litigants who appear there. The connection between court proceduresthat are helpful to litigants and the job satisfaction of judges appears to be related.

Second, when judges are feeling productive and positive these attitudes carry over to staff,litigants, and counsel. Likewise, if a burnt-out judge is short-tempered and grumpy, the percep-tion of the court is more likely to be negative. This suggests that, as in other professionalsettings, a judge’s job satisfaction would be a predictor of litigant satisfaction and significantlyaffect the public’s trust and confidence on the courts. In 2002, the National Center for StateCourts hosted the “National Conference on Public Trust and Confidence in the JusticeSystem.”94 Comments at the conference are quite telling as they relate to judicial attitudes anda problem-solving approach. Tom Tyler, Professor of Psychology at New York University, said,

When we look at what people really care about, that is what drives their confidence . . . we findthat the key factors are issues of process, what people experience in the manner in which theircases are resolved. [They are most confident and trusting] . . . when they feel they can par-ticipate [and] receiv[e] polite and dignified treatment.95

Drug treatment courts, in particular, were singled out for praise. Another commentatorsaid, “. . . [T]he whole movement that is occurring with drug treatment courts . . . is indirect response to people believing that they should be able to play a fundamental role inthe problem-solving capacity in their communities.”96

Finally, highlighting the relationship between a judge’s perception of a litigant’sgratitude and his or her own job satisfaction shows that judges, too, remain social andhuman even while on the bench. Moreover, judicial stress can lead to substance abuse andother problems that negatively reflect on the judiciary and the system as a whole. When themajor player in the courtroom has developed an understanding, acceptance, and appreci-ation of him- or herself and others and when judges can feel pride in their work, confidenceand trust are improved. Judicial satisfaction, then, relates not only to the individual judgebut to the very quality of justice delivered in the courtroom.

NOTES

1. David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick, Therapeutic Jurisprudence as a New Approach to Mental Health LawPolicy Analysis and Research, 45 U. Miami L. Rev. 979 (1991).


2. Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts (Bruce J. Winick &David B. Wexler eds., 2003); Practicing Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Law as a Helping Profession

(Dennis P. Stolle et al. eds., 2000); Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence

(David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick eds., 1996).3. These courts have also been called “therapeutic courts,” “accountability and treatment courts,” “therapeutic

jurisprudence courts,” “collaborative courts,” and “collaborative justice courts.”4. Deborah J. Chase et al., Community Courts and Family Law, 2 J. Center for Fam., Child. & Cts. 37

(2000).5. Bruce J. Winick, The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 3 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 184

(1997).6. See, e.g., State v. Rogers, 170 P.3d 881 (Idaho 2007) (Idaho Supreme Court opinion holding that termination

from Drug Treatment Court program requires the same due process due a probationer or parolee as statedin Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)).

7. Peggy Fulton Hora & William G. Schma, Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Judicature, July–Aug. 1998, at 9;Peggy Fulton Hora et al., Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing theCriminal Justice System’s Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 439 (1999).

8. There are eight different types of alcohol and other drug treatment courts (adult [1174], juvenile [455],family [301], designated driving while impaired [110], reentry [24], tribal [72], campus [6] and Federal District[5]) for a total of 2147 and 13 other types of problem-solving courts (reentry [28], gun [4], community [30],mental health [219], domestic violence [185], prostitution [4], parole violation [12], homeless [37], truancy [304],child support [154], integrated treatment [20], gambling [2] , veteran [1], and other [58]) for a total of 1058. SeeC. West Huddleston III et al., Nat’l Drug Court Inst. Painting the Current Picture: A National

Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States

(2008), available at http://www.ndci.org/.9. Id.10. Richard Zorza points out that whether a judge is neutral or not is a very different question from whether

the judge is engaged or not and that, with respect to ethical rules, the issue is neutrality, not engagement. RichardZorza, The Disconnect Between the Requirements of Judicial Neutrality and Those of the Appearance of NeutralityWhen Parties Appear Pro Se: Causes, Solutions, Recommendations, and Implications, 23 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 423,430 nn.17–18, 448–52 nn.47–65 (2004). See also St. Just. Inst. and Cal. Admin. Off. of the Cts., Ctr. for Fams.,Child. and the Cts, Handling Cases involving Self-Represented Litigants: A Benchguide for Judicial

Officers, Chapter 2 (2007), available at http://serranus.courtinfo.ca.gov/education/bench_hb/self_rep_litigants.pdf.11. Deborah J. Chase & Peggy Fulton Hora, The Implications of Therapeutic Jurisprudence for Judicial

Satisfaction, 37 Ct. Rev. 12 (2000).12. Hora & Schma, supra note 7.13. U.S. Dept. of Just., Off. of Just. Programs, Drug Cts. Program Off., Defining Drug Courts: The

Key Components (1997), available at http://www.nadcp.org/docs/dkeypdf.pdf.14. See generally Steven Belenko, Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 1 Nat’l Drug Ct. Inst.

Rev. 10 (1998); Steven Belenko, Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 1999 Update, 2 Nat’l Drug Ct.

Inst. Rev. 2 (1999); Steven Belenko, The Nat’l Ctr. on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Colum. U.,Research on Drug Courts, A Critical Review 2001 Update, (2001), available at http://www.casacolumbia.org/.

15. Carol Coulter, Report Finds Drug Court Pilot Project Reduces Addiction, Crime, The Irish Times, Feb.15, 2003, available at http://spa.american.edu/justice/publications/pilotproject.pdf; Toni Makkai, The Emergenceof Drug Courts in Australia, in Drug Courts: Current Issues & Future Perspectives (Lana D. Harrison etal. eds., 2002). See also National Association of Drug Court Professions, International Association of DrugTreatment Courts, http://www.nadcp.org/iadtc/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2008) (for links to at least six countries—Canada, Puerto Rico, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, and New Zealand—that have implemented drug courts, andan International Association of Drug Court Professionals). Moreover, the United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime has developed guiding principles for drug treatment courts internationally as have Native American TribalHealing to Wellness courts. See United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, http://www.unodc.org/ (last visitedOct. 30, 2008); Tribal Court Clearinghouse, Tribal Hearing to Wellness Courts, http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/drug_court.htm (last visited Oct. 30, 2008).

16. Sally L. Satel, Observational Study of Courtroom Dynamics in Selected Drug Courts, 1 Nat’l Drug Ct.

Inst. Rev. 56 (1998).17. Belenko, supra note 14.18. Shelley Johnson Listwan et al., The Erie County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings, Ctr for

Crim. Just. Research (2001), available at http://www.uc.edu/criminaljustice/ResearchReports.html.19. Id.

http://www.ndci.org/

http://serranus.courtinfo.ca.gov/education/bench_hb/self_rep_litigants.pdf

http://www.nadcp.org/docs/dkeypdf.pdf

http://www.casacolumbia.org/

http://spa.american.edu/justice/publications/pilotproject.pdf

http://www.nadcp.org/iadtc/

http://www.unodc.org/

http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/drug_court.htm

http://www.uc.edu/criminaljustice/ResearchReports.html


20. See Belenko, Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, supra note 14.21. Robert Granfield et al., An Examination of the Denver Drug Court: The Impact of a Treatment-Oriented

Drug-Offender System, 20 L. & Pol’y 183 (1998).22. Jeffrey Tauber & Kathleen R. Snavely, Nat’l Drug Ct. Inst., Drug Courts: A Research

Agenda (1999), available at http://www.ndci.org/research.pdf.23. Id.24. U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-05-219, Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism

Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes (2005).25. Huddleston et al., supra note 8.26. Dale K. Sechrest & David Shicor, Determinants of Graduation from a Day Treatment Drug Court

in California: A Preliminary Study, 31 J. Drug Issues 129 (2001).27. Denise C. Gottfredson et al., Effectiveness of Drug Treatment Courts: Evidence from a Randomized

Trial, 2 Criminology &Pub. Pol’y 171 (2003).28. John P. Walters, Dir., U. S. Nat’l Drug Control Pol’y, Remarks at the United Nations Commission on

Narcotic Drugs (Mar. 7, 2005), available at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/speech05/030705.html.29. Nat’l Conf. on Pub. Trust and Confidence in the Just. Sys., National Action Plan: A Guide

for State and National Organizations 14 (2002) (quoting Beverly Watts Davis), available at http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_AmtPTC_NatlActionPlanPub.pdf.

30. John S. Goldkamp et al., An Honest Chance: Perspectives on Drug Courts, http://www.ncjrs.org/html/bja/honestchance (last visited Oct. 28, 2008).

31. Herma Hill Kay, A Family Court: The California Proposal, 56 Cal. L. Rev. 1205 (1968).32. Barbara A. Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law: A

Blueprint to Construct a Unified Family Court, 71 S. Cal. L. Rev. 469 (1998); Catherine J. Ross, The Failureof Fragmentation: The Promise of a System of Unified Family Courts, 32 Fam. L.Q. 3 (1998).

33. Ross, supra note 32.34. Barbara A. Babb & Judith D. Moran, Substance Abuse, Families, and Unified Family Courts: The Creation

of a Caring Justice System, 3 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y 1 (1999); Jessica Pearson, Court Services: Meeting theNeeds of Twenty-First Century Families, 33 Fam. L.Q. 617 (1999); Jona Goldschmidt, The Pro Se Litigant’s Strugglefor Access to Justice, 40 Fam. Ct. Rev. 36 (2002); Andrew Schepard, Editorial Notes, 40 Fam. Ct. Rev. 5 (2002).

35. Barbara A. Babb, Where We Stand: An Analysis of America’s Family Law Adjudicatory Systems and theMandate to Establish Unified Family Courts, 32 Fam. L.Q. 31 (1998). See also Jeffrey A. Kuhn, A Seven-YearLesson on Unified Family Courts: What We Have Learned Since the 1990 National Family Court Symposium, 32Fam. L.Q. 67 (1998); Ross, supra note 32.

36. See also Donna M. Petre, Unified Family Courts: A California Proposal Revisited, 1 J. Center Child,Fam & Cts. 161 (1999).

37. Jud. Council of Cal., Unified Courts for Families Deskbook: A Guide for California Courts

on Unifying and Coordinating Family and Juvenile Law Matters (2004), available at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/UCFdeskbook.pdf.

38. In a 2003 survey of pro se assistance plans submitted by local trial courts to the California AdministrativeOffice of the Courts, estimates of the pro se rate in family law from the larger counties (with over fifty judicialpositions) was 72%. See Deborah J. Chase, Pro Se Justice and Unified Family Courts, 37 Fam. L.Q. 403(2003).

39. Babb & Moran, supra note 34.40. Babb, supra note 35; Ross, supra note 32; Gary B. Melton, Children, Families, and the Courts in the

Twenty-First Century, 66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1993 (1993). See Kuhn, supra note 35.41. Pearson, supra note 34.42. Barbara A. Babb, Unified Family Courts: A Comprehensive Solution for Resolving Complex Family Justice

System Problems, Unified Fam. Ct. Connection, Fall 2007, at 3, available at law.ubalt.edu/law/downloads/law_downloads/UFC_Fall_2007.pdf.

43. Jeffrey A. Kuhn, Ctr. Fams., Child. & Cts., Final Report: Independent Evaluation Indiana

Family Court Initiative (2001), available at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/family-court/docs/2004-report/fam-crt-evaluation.pdf.

44. See Final Report of the Commission on Families in the Colorado Courts (2002), available athttp://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Standing_Committee_on_Family_Issues/famcommexecsumm_1.pdf. See also Evaluation of the Family Court Pilot Project, http://www.17thjudicialdistrict.com/adamsreport.pdf (last visited Oct. 8, 2008).

45. Drug Policy Alliance, Mandatory Sentencing (Mar. 2001), http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/mandatorysentance_factsheet_library.cfm.

http://www.ndci.org/research.pdf

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/speech05/030705.html

http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_AmtPTC_NatlActionPlanPub.pdf

http://www.ncjrs.org/html/bja/honestchance

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/family-court/docs/2004-report/fam-crt-evaluation.pdf

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Standing_Committee_on_

http://www.17thjudicialdistrict.com/adamsreport.pdf

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/mandatorysentance_factsheet_library.cfm


46. This quotation was relayed to the author from one of the many fellow judges she spoke to over the courseof her career.

47. For an example of such sentencing software for New York State sentencing, see Tompkins County DistrictAttorney, CrimeTime, http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/distatto/CrimeTime.html (last visited Oct. 28, 2008); and fora similar product made for California, see CrimeTime, California Edition, http://www.crimetimesw.com(last visited Oct. 28, 2008).

48. Michael Cooper, New York State Votes to Reduce Drug Sentences, N.Y. Times, Dec. 8, 2004, at A1.49. Gary Fields, U.S. Sentencing Panel to Focus on Alternatives to Jail, Wall St. J., Sept. 6, 2008, at A3.50. Paige M. Harrison & Allen J. Beck, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Just. Statistics, Prison and

Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005 (2006), http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim05.pdf.51. Lauren E. Glaze & Seri Palla, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Just. Statistics, Probation and

Parole in the United States, 2004 (2005), http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus04.pdf.52. Id.53. Nat’l. Ctr. for St. Cts., Trial Court Performance Standards: Desk Reference Manual,

http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/TCPS/TCPSDeskRef.pdf (last visited Oct. 28, 2008).54. Id.55. U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. of Just. Programs, Reentry Trends in the United States (2003), http://

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm.56. Fox Butterfield, Study Calls California Parole System a $1 Billion Failure, N.Y. Times, Nov. 14, 2003 at A24.57. Id.58. Carol S. Weisman & Constance A. Nathanson, Professional Satisfaction and Client Outcomes: A Comparative

Organizational Analysis, 23 Medical Care 1179 (1985).59. Judith Katherine Walsh, Nurse Job Satisfaction and Patient Satisfaction in the Emergency Department, 60

Dissertation Abstracts Int’l 133 (1998).60. Marylin E. Kingston, A Correlational Study in Managed Behavioral Healthcare: Assessing the Relationship

Between Provider Satisfaction and Client Satisfaction, 59 Dissertation Abstracts Int’l 1896 (1998).61. John E. Poulin & Carolyn A. Walter, Retention Plans and Job Satisfaction of Gerontological Social Workers,

19 J. Gerontological Soc. Work 99 (1992).62. John Paul Ryan et al., American Trial Judges (1980).63. Isaiah M. Zimmerman, Stress: What It Does to Judges, and How It Can Be Lessened, 20 Judges J. 5

(1981).64. R. Pommerening, Self-Image of German Juvenile Judges, 65 Monatsschrift fuer Kriminologie und

Strafrechsreform 193 (1982).65. Ryan et al., supra note 62.66. Pommerening, supra note 64; Tracy D. Eells & Robert Showalter, Work Related Stress in American Trial

Judges, 22 Bull. Am. Acad. Psychiatry L. 71 (1994); Joy Rogers et al., The Occupational Stress of Judges, 36Can. J. Psychiatry 317 (1991).

67. Eells & Showalter supra note 66; Rogers et al., supra note 66.68. Eells & Showalter, supra note 66.69. Zimmerman, supra note 63.70. This reference was personally made to the author some time over the course of her career.71. Id.72. Michael A. Town, Is Compassion Fatigue an Issue for Judges?, The Fla. Bar News, June 1, 2004,

http://www.floridabar.org.73. Kuhn, supra note 43.74. Hora & Schma, supra note 7.75. Chase & Hora, supra note 11.76. F = 20.93 (p < .0001).77. F = 28.05 (p < .0001).78. F = 25.11 (p < .0001).79. F = 42.61 (p < .0001).80. F = 50.56 (p < .0001).81. F = 53.52 (p < .0001).82. F = 71.40 (p < .0001).83. F = 20.20 (p < .0001).84. F = 60.50 (p < .0001).85. F = 28.05 (p < .0001).86. F = 46.22 (p < .0001).

http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/distatto/CrimeTime.html

http://www.crimetimesw.com

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim05.pdf

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus04.pdf

http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/TCPS/TCPSDeskRef.pdf

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm

http://www.floridabar.org


87. F = 41.59 (p < .0001).88. F = 42.06 (p < .0001).89. F = 8.08 (p < .005).90. Significance is at least p < .05.91. Zimmerman, supra note 63.92. Kuhn, supra note 43.93. Philip Bean, Drug Courts, the Judge, and the Rehabilitative Ideal, in Drug Courts in Theory and in

Practice (James L. Nolan, Jr. ed., 2002).94. Nat’l Conf. on Pub. Trust and Confidence in the Just. Sys., supra note 29.95. Id. at 12. See also Nat’l Ctr. for St. Cts., Jud. Council of Cal., Trust and Confidence in the

California Courts: A Survey of the Public and Attorneys (2005), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/4_37pubtrust1.pdf.

96. Nat’l Conf. on Pub. Trust and Confidence in the Just. Sys, supra note 29, at 13.

Deborah J. Chase is a senior attorney with the California Judicial Council, Administrative Office of theCourts and The Center for Families, Children and the Courts. She has worked with local trial courts todevelop programs to assist pro se litigants in all areas of civil litigation and with California’s UnifiedCourts for Families project. She is a family law specialist certified by the State Bar of California with overtwenty-seven years in practice. She also holds a PhD in clinical psychology. She has served on the facultyof the B.E. Witkin Judicial College teaching civil and criminal domestic violence law to newly appointedjudges. She has worked on numerous committees and task forces related to pro se assistance and familylaw including the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee to the California Judicial Council and theLegal Services Trust Fund Commission of the State Bar of California. She was awarded a 2002 CLAYaward (California Lawyer Magazine Attorney of the Year) for her work in improving access to justice forpro se litigants.

Judge Peggy Fulton Hora retired in 2006 from the California Superior Court after serving twenty-oneyears. She had a criminal assignment that included presiding over the Drug Treatment Court. She is aformer dean of the B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California and has been on the faculty of the NationalJudicial College since 1992. She is a recipient of the Bernard S. Jefferson Judicial Education Award fromthe California Judges’ Association. Judge Hora is a senior judicial fellow for the National Drug CourtInstitute. She has lectured nationally and internationally and has written extensively on justice issues. Theappellate court and over 100 journals and law reviews have cited her work. She recently was appointedby the Premier of South Australia to be a 2009 Thinker in Residence. She will work on therapeuticjurisprudence and restorative justice issues for the government in Adelaide. Her latest article, “DrugTreatment Courts in the Twenty-First Century: The Evolution of the Revolution in Problem-SolvingCourts,” was published in the Georgia Law Review.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/4_37pubtrust1.pdf

the best seat in the house: the court assignment and judicial satisfaction

Documents